Gates Foundation Grants Ensure More Population Growth—And Immigration
There`s an old joke about a delusionary business
plan: "Lose
money on
every sale, but make it up in volume."
I was reminded of this by an October 28, 2009 statement
posted on
Bill and Melinda Gates` Foundation Center web site
about
their vast plans to cut disease, particularly among
children, with lavish spending,:
"In a joint
speech to lawmakers, administration officials, and
foreign policy experts as part of the foundation`s new
Living Proof Project, the Gateses noted that U.S.
spending on global health has increased significantly in
recent years, from $1.5 billion in 2001 to $7.7 billion
in 2009. Although that figure represents less than
one-quarter of 1 percent of the federal budget, the
nation`s investments in global health have achieved
impressive results. For instance, since 2003 the
President`s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has helped
save an estimated 1.2 million lives. `U.S.-supported
global health programs are saving and improving the
lives of millions of people, at a remarkably low cost,`
said Bill Gates. `All Americans should be proud of this
success.` [Bill
and Melinda Gates Call on U.S. Policy Makers to Continue
Support of Global Health Initiatives]
Doubtless many lives are saved by these efforts—at least
temporarily. The Gates` business, Microsoft, certainly
knows how to reach millions and its volume has grown to
be huge.
But is this program ignoring the facts on the ground in
too many countries?
Since 2003, Mr. and Mrs. Gates, 1.2 million lives may
have been saved—but the net number of humans added to
the planet since then is about 400 million, many of them
in countries which have serious health, resource, and
stability problems.
Every child born potentially adds to the cumulative ills
facing these poor countries. And these translate into
conditions where immigration to other places often
becomes imperative for many—that, or joining an
indigenous militant group.
Since April, I have been to four countries in
Africa—Ethiopia, Egypt, Ghana, and Zambia. And, in
decades of overseas travel prior to these trips, my wife
and I have witnessed to the same continuing urgent need:
for more family planning, but also for programs that
empower the producers of babies, namely women.
Many NGOs working in this field are getting that job
done—but always with inadequate resources.
For example, Ethiopia (to the surprise, I bet, of many)
is now Africa`s 2nd largest country. Its population has
risen from 35 to 85 million in just 25 years. In a
private interview, we were told by Ethiopia`s President
that his government has embraced Pathfinder
International`s Takamol clinic method which is being
pursued in both Ethiopia and
Egypt. Establishing attractive small, modern clinic centers with local
governance in areas which encompass both rural and urban
populations has brought women into leadership positions
on critical issues such as child spacing, contraceptive
choices and related reproductive services.
PF`s constant operational mantra,
"Building
capacity",
can hopefully produce a continuing successful
program even when PF is no longer there. What a good
move to establish functioning, local community-based
democracies that encourage such a powerful sense of
community ownership in the local clinic staff and their
customers.
As The
Population Reference Bureau,
which has been a Gates Foundation grant recipient, has
just reported in one of its authoritative policy briefs:
"Family
planning is one of the most cost-effective health
interventions in the developing world. For decades,
research has shown that for a relatively modest
investment, family planning saves lives and improves
maternal and child health. However, there have been
relatively few studies that shed light on how family
planning also lifts families out of poverty. Now, a new
study on Bangladesh provides evidence that long-term
investment in an integrated family planning and maternal
and child health program (FPMCH) contributes to improved
economic security for families, households, and
communities through larger incomes, greater accumulation
of wealth, and higher levels of education."
[Family Planning and
Economic Well-Being: New Evidence From Bangladesh]
Too bad the Gates Foundation`s leaders are not heeding
PRB`s suggestion to fund more similar programs.
The Gates Foundation`s October 28, 2009 statement went
on:
"The Gateses also urged policy makers to commit to reducing child deaths
worldwide by nearly 50 percent — from about nine million
per year to five million — by 2025, noting that U.S.
support of global health initiatives has already helped
reduce deaths of young children by more than 50 percent
in the past fifty years. Citing new projections by Johns
Hopkins University researchers, the Gateses highlighted
four strategies that could be combined to achieve that
goal: immunizing 90 percent of the world`s children
against measles, rotavirus, pneumococcal, and other
illnesses; providing malaria prevention tools to 90
percent of people at risk of the disease and effective
malaria drugs to 75 percent of those in need; providing
basic health services to at least 75 percent of pregnant
women and newborns; and ensuring that at least 75
percent of children receive treatment for diarrhea and
pneumonia.
“`When it
comes to global health, Bill and I are optimists — but
we`re impatient optimists,` said Melinda Gates. `The
world is getting better, but it`s not getting better for
everyone, and it`s not getting better fast enough.`
But the birth explosion occasioned by the introduction
of penicillin in the 1940`s raised world population 2.5
times. And now we find the world a much more dangerous
place.
Mrs. Gates, you are repeating this pre-WWII process with
your programs. Except that the planet can`t handle with
another multiplication like that—a theoretical increase
in world population to over 15 billion, which would
insure a complete planetary disaster.
I impatiently wait your enlightenment.
The Gates program is great PR. But much of the world
loses ground with every new birth. Did anyone in the
Gates` large audience of important leaders listening to
their statement rise to make this point?
When I related those Ethiopian population growth numbers
to a friend living in Falls Church, VA, a Washington
suburb, she exclaimed,
"My God, our
neighborhood is
loaded
with
Ethiopians."
No surprise,
and there are plenty of other immigrants there too,
generated by this same overseas population growth.
Per
Wikipedia:
"As of the
2000 census there were in Falls Church 10,377 people,
4,471 households, and 2,620 families residing in the
city. There were 4,725 housing units at an average
density of 2,379.5/sq mi (916.8/km²). The racial makeup
of the city was 84.97% white, 3.28% Black or African
American, 0.24% Native American, 6.50% Asian, 0.07%
Pacific Islander, 2.52% from other races, and 2.43% from
two or more races. 8.44% of the population were
Hispanics or Latinos of any race. Eden Center, a large
mall of
Vietnamese
specialty stores, is located in Falls Church, and draws
Asian consumers from the region.
"
The city also has a very significant population of
ethnic Salvadorans.
Just more Microsoft customers, I guess.
The US has added 50 million immigrants and their
offspring since 1970.
More are coming, you may be sure.
What is the Gates Foundation doing about that?
Donald A. Collins [email
him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own.
